Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

with city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. Prior to public comment, the Commission by motion and vote may extend or shorten the length of public comment consistent with city policy regarding public comment in Brown Act meetings. The law does not permit Commission action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda. If Commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to Commission consensus.

We did not receive early submissions for public comment. Chair, at this time, you may call for public comment via Zoom webinar or in person for items not on the agenda. Public comments can be made on Zoom webinar by using the raise your hand feature or by pressing star 9 on the line.

OK. Do we have any hands raised on Zoom?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

OK. Anyone in the audience wish to address the commission on any item not on the agenda tonight may do so now. OK. Being done, we'll move on from public comment. Thank you. That takes us on to disclosure of ex parte communications. Madam Clerk.

At this time, we ask the members of the Planning Commission to disclose any communications they have had with project applicants or members of the public regarding items on this evening's agenda.

Okay, this will have asked the commissioners if they have any expertise items, communication items to disclose tonight. We'll start with Commissioner Mendoza. None. Commissioner Paslack.

None.

Vice Chair Jimenez.

None.

And I have none as well. Thank you. All right, that takes us on to the consent items tonight. Matters listed under consent are considered routine. and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items, these matters. If discussion is desired, a member of the audience or a commission member may request that an item be removed from consent and will be considered separately. Item C1 tonight is 26-109, review and approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes for April 2nd, 2026. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests from the public to pull this item tonight?

No, Chair, we do not.

Anybody in the audience wish to pull this item? Any commissioners wish to pull the consent item tonight? None? Okay. So we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve all items listed under the consent calendar tonight as presented?

Motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Paslack and a second from Vice Chair Jimenez to approve item C1, the consent item tonight. All those in favor will vote saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4-0. Thank you.

All right.

That moves us right on to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item D1.

Item D1, 26-188. Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca, State of California, approving tentative parcel map TMP 25-186, allowing for the subdivision of an 11.86 acre parcel into two parcels for 712 Industrial Park Drive, tentative parcel map located at 712 Industrial Park Drive, APN 221-140-08,

Assistant planner Allison Diaz will be presenting this item Good evening chair and members of the Commission My name is Allison Diaz assistant planner and tonight. I'm presenting the industrial Park Drive tentative parcel map The project is located at 7 1 2 industrial Park Drive at the southwest corner of industrial Park Drive in Van Ryan Avenue and The project applicant is requesting the subdivision of an 11.86 acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel one is proposed to be 0.21 acres and parcel two is proposed to be 11.65 acres. Adjacent uses to the project site include a single family dwelling and agricultural uses to the north. a single-family dwelling and industrial to the east, Highway 120, commercial mixed use and high-density residential to the south, and industrial to the west. The general plan and zoning for this site is commercial mixed use. The existing agricultural use and single family dwelling are legal nonconforming, and while no development is proposed at this time, any future development will be required to conform to the commercial mixed use development standard. The proposed parcel map shows the lot split, separating the existing single family dwelling onto proposed parcel one, while designating the remaining agricultural use onto proposed parcel two. The project was duly noticed and published in the Manteca Bulletin on April 26, 2026, and staff has not received any written comments for this project. The project is determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for section 15315, minor land divisions of the CEQA guidelines. This exemption applies to projects involving the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the general plan in zoning. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing finding the project is exempt from CEQA and adopt a resolution approving the tentative parcel map, APM 25-186, for 712 Industrial Park Drive, APM 221-140-08. That concludes this presentation. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Diaz. Any commissioners have any clarifying questions for Ms. Diaz or staff at this time? OK. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? All right. Thank you for being here. Please state your name and title for the record as well.

Thank you, Chair. Leah Simvalakis with Northstar Engineering. I'm the Director of Planning and Entitlements. I want to thank Allison for her work on the project. I don't have much to add. I think she covered everything, so if there are any questions of me, I'm happy to answer them.

Very good. Just one quick question. Have you read the conditions of approval on this project as presented, and are you in agreement with those conditions?

Yes, we are. I have, and we are.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any initial questions for the applicants? All right, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item at 6.12 p.m. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter is not required to provide their name, but you may do so for the record, so you choose. Madam Clerk, are there any comments or hands raised on Zoom for this item?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

Very good, thank you. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item can do so now.

Okay.

Seeing none, since there are no comments, there's no applicant rebuttal needed. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 6.13 PM. All right. We'll bring it back to the commissioners for discussion or any additional questions for staff at this time.

I know this is just the item to approve the tentative parcel map. You know, it's been like that for a long time, not sidewalk, but just curb and nice white street. So eventually somebody's going to come and move in there, and I guess at that point sidewalk may be a condition of approval depending on what the use is when that time comes.

Yes, Commissioner, the map was conditioned for road improvements at the time of development, so we would determine whether or not sidewalk would be appropriate depending on what's proposed as far as the development.

Okay, and you know what? It looks like there's already some buried utilities. It looks like there's a bench right behind that curb, and then the orchard drops off, but it looks like there's some buried, I don't know, PG&E or something there. So I don't know if that's, already been some of the 30 works been done in that area.

Yeah, I'm not familiar commissioner, but we could certainly do some investigation and and get back to you on that.

That's okay. Because I know that's it's coming. And we might see it within the next year. You know what? The way Manteca is growing, something will be there. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Sure. Pass that for men has any questions? Okay. I just have a couple. The existing parcels in legal non-conforming status today, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Is there any event that would trigger full compliance requirement for that parcel? Or how would that impact the future CMU, if there were future development? How would that impact, since they're in legal non-conforming status? Could they be in that status indefinitely, in theory?

They could unless the single-family residence is vacant for six months or greater, or say if it burns down, they decide not to rebuild. Okay. Then at that time, then it would flip over to commercial mixed use.

Okay. Thank you. And then for frontage improvements, who's responsible for the frontage improvements? Should they be required?

Typically, that would be the developer, but that would be something discussed with engineering at that time when they decide to develop the site. Thank you.

And the CEQA exemption is limited to the land division only in this case, is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. All right, those are all my questions. If there's no other questions, there's no more discussion. We'll call for a vote. So this time, is there a motion and a second to find the project exempt from CEQA? excuse me, correction, find the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and adopt a resolution approving the tentative parcel map TPM 25-186 allowing for the subdivision of an 11.86 acre parcel into two parcels for 712 Industrial Park Drive tentative parcel map location at 712 Industrial Park Drive APN 221-140-08.

I make the motion to approve as written. We have a second.

Second it.

Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Mendoza and a second from Commissioner Paslack. All those who vote in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. All right. Madam Clerk, Item D-2.

Item D2, 26-213, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of a resolution approving a one-year extension for site plan and design review SPC 23-30 and conditional use permit UPJ-23-31 for the Three Strikes FEC and Villa Banchetto project located at 1602 and 1710 West Atherton Drive. APNs 226-160-19 and 226-160-49. Deputy Director Jesus Orozco will be presenting this item.

Good evening, chair, commissioners, members of the public. Mr. Barnum, who was the project manager for this project, isn't available today. So I will be sitting in his place. As it was introduced to you, this is a one-year extension for an approved project for a site plan review and a conditional use permit for an event center that entails multiple uses. As I mentioned, the project was originally approved. This dates back to 2024. The project site is about 7.16 acres, and it's located immediately north to existing residential on the south side of West Atherton Drive between Union Road and Airport Drive. So again, there's single-family residential adjoining the site. As previously mentioned, there's future commercial development, land uses to the west, northwest, and obviously public right away to the, immediately to the north of the project parcel. The site has a general plan and zoning designation that allows for commercial mixed use. The approved uses remain consistent with the current zoning and land use designations. On your screen, you see the approved site plan for the project, noting that there have been some red lines to the conditions approval to address some updates to fire code to be in compliance with health and safety requirements. As you can see, on the eastern side, most of the site, we see what's being called as the Three Strikes Bowling Center, and on the west side will be a banquet hall. There'll be parking in between both uses to serve both purposes. the entire parcel and one point of access for both ingress, egress, and not on the site at this moment, but a fire exit, emergency access is also being, will be required as part of a final revised site plan. On your screen are some elevations of the approved buildings for the project, quite contemporary, including a mixture of architectural embellishments like awnings, varying roof sizes and vertical articulations throughout the building. These are the elevations for the banquet hall. Again, it has a visually interesting architecture for this particular venue. The project was noticed April 22nd, and as of today, no public comment has been submitted to planning staff for this item. The project was originally, the project was deemed as a An initial study was prepared for the project and it was determined that there was less than significant impacts to the project site. The appropriate CEQA was adopted at that original approval hearing for the project. Therefore at this point, since there are no changes to the project, the CEQA in place remains valid for the project. That being said, staff is requesting that the commission consider this item and adopt a one-year extension for the site plan in condition of use permit for the three strikes and the Villa Banquero Event Center project located at 1602 and 1710 West Satherton Drive. That completes this evening's presentation. We're happy to answer any questions. And we do have the applicant attendance as well.

Thank you, Deputy Director. Do any commissioners have any clarifying questions at this time for staff?

Can you mention something about a fire emergency access that's not shown on the plan right now?

Yes, so what's your question specifically?

Yeah, you mentioned it, but I didn't see it on the plan. Is that?

Right, so I don't believe these plans are currently shown, but the final site plan will have to include that specific fire lane for fire access.

Does that include a new entrance way, or is it just?

It will be a restricted new entrance way to offer fire access, yes.

Thank you. Any other commissioners or staff this time? All right, we'll have the applicant come on up. Love to hear from you. You can state your name and title for the record as well. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Michael Mora. I'm an investor and a project manager for the project.

Do any commissioners have any questions?

Yes. Where is, in terms of the process,

we have this project we've gotten our first revision back from the city so we're in the process of getting back to them and making those revisions they're pretty light so we should have them back to the city probably in the next two or three weeks and based on that i don't know you get a permit what two months and you start construction yes So we plan to start groundbreaking in the middle of July. And then it'll be approximately 18 months to finish the bowling alley. And then once we have the bowling alley established and finished, then we'll begin the process of building the banquet hall.

So the bowling alley will be completed and open to the public. And the other one will be under construction. So there'll be like half the parking lot will be constructed.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant at this time? One question for me, sir. Are you in agreement with the revised conditions of approval on this project? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Paslack, anything for the applicant?

I read somewhere, I don't know if it was in the conditions of approval, about no rear-facing windows for the residents.

Yeah, those are just architectural. They don't have glass in them whatsoever.

Yeah, for sure.

They'll be painted. It won't even have glass in it.

OK. All right. Thank you, sir. We're going to open the public hearing now on this item at 625 PM. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? It's not required to provide their name, but you can do so for the record if you wish. Madam Clerk, are there any live comments or comments on Zoom?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards.

Okay. Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now. All right. Seeing none, since there's no public comment, there's no rebuttal needed from the applicants, so we'll close this public hearing on this item at 6.26 p.m. We'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and follow-up with staff. Any additional questions for staff? Just for the record, what the commission's being asked to do tonight is simply grant the one-year extension. Is that correct?

That is correct.

With the revised conditions of it. Correct. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Any additional questions? Okay, there's no additional questions. We'll call for a vote. There are a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension for the Site Plan and Design Review SPC-23-30 and Conditional Use Permit UPJ-23-31 for the Three Strikes FEC and Villa Pancetto project located at 1602 and 1710 West Atherton Drive, APNs 226-160-19 and 226-160-49.

I motion to approve.

Second it.

All right. We have a motion from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Pasluck. All those who vote in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Takes us to item D3. Madam Clerk.

Item D326-215, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of a resolution approving a one-year extension for site plan and design review SPC-21-149 and tentative parcel map SDJ-21-150 for the 1901 East Yosemite Avenue project located at 1901 East Yosemite Avenue. APN 208-310-26. Deputy Director will also be, Jesus Orozco will also be presenting this item.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners, members of staff. Once again, this item, Mr. Barnum is available at this, this evening to make this presentation, to present this item. Similar to the request before this one is another one year extension for a previously approved tentative parcel map and site plan review. Divide a parcel into two and allow for the construction of a fueling station and a convenience store on one of the brigaded parcels. The project site in question is approximately 2.98 acres or 129 130,000 square feet in area. The site's located on the northeast corner of East Yosemite and Astana Avenue. The development on this project being proposed, it will be located on the western side of that project site. The site's surrounded by commercial to the west and some light service commercial to the east, some commercial uses to the south, and what appears to be some family, some modular housing to the north. The site has a general commercial land use and zoning designation, which allows for the previously approved uses remaining consistent with the zoning and land use designations. On your screen you see the site plan for the project. As I mentioned, the proposal for, or the approval for the project is located on the west side, which entails the fueling station, convenience store, and supporting ancillary uses. The site plan does have a conceptual site plan to the east. However, that component has not been approved and it's only there for conceptual purposes. Subject to change based on future proposals. This is a focused view of what the site will look like, again, including the, it also does entail a drive-through car wash facility and some in-line tending uses for some potential future retail and quick service type of restaurants as well. These are just renderings of the proposed or of the approved site. Again, they will incorporate various architectural elements, breaking of the masses by providing some variation on the roof lines and parapets. I do want to bring forward to the Commission's attention that there are revised conditions of approval as part of this extension. They've been included within your agenda packet for this evening. I just want to highlight three of them within the revised conditions approval, which basically include general comments and to some degree requirements of the developer from various outside agencies, including PG&E, the San Joaquin County Multispecies Habitat Conservation and their required programs, as well as the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in addition to administrative type of conditions of approval from staff to clarify the approval process. The project was duly noticed on the Manteca Bulletin on April 22nd, and to date, staff has not received any comments on this matter. The project was deemed exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 1533 , considered as an infill development project at its original approval meeting. Therefore, no further environmental review pursuant to CEQA is required at this time. That being said, staff is requesting that you consider a one-year extension for the project for the site extension for the site plan and design review SPC 2021-149 and tentative parcel map SDJ 21-150 for the 1901 East Yosemite Avenue project. I'd like to conclude with bringing to the commission's attention as well that staff did receive late after the agenda distribution correspondence from the project engineer requesting substitution of the approved site plans. Those substitutions only include the engineer record stamp on those plans. There are no changes to the site plan. Conditions of approval reflect that change as well as the resolution. So before you this evening is re-revised and conditions of approval to account for those changes. That completes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is in attendance to answer any questions as well.

Thank you, sir. Any commissioners have any clarifying questions? All right. We'll have the applicant come up at this time. And if you could state your name and title for the record, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are you in agreement with the revised conditions of approval as presented tonight? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Do you have a timeline to break around here?

We just have a few comments from the engineering department, and once that is done, we should be good to go. Okay. We're looking at maybe a month or two.

Okay. Very good. Perfect. Thank you. There's no questions for the applicant. Thank you, sir. We'll open the public hearing on this item at this time at 6.35 p.m. all right anyone wishing to address us on this item may may use their name or may give their name but they're not required to do so madam clerk are there any hands raised on zoom or any live comment there are no hands raised on zoom and i have received no comment cards okay any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item can do so now okay Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item at 6.36 PM. Bring it back to the Commission for discussion and any follow-up questions for staff.

Mr. Mendoza. Can you pull up the stipend, please? Is this a site plan that was presented when it was approved a year and a half ago?

That is the case, yes.

Okay. You know, I remember this when they were discussing a year and a half ago that both of the Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 were going to have direct access to Highway 120 at one location that looks like it's more to the east of Separate, I mean the west separation. Is there any work in the median in the Caltrans right-of-way that's going to be required for this configuration of the site plan?

Commissioner, we condition the project to essentially revise the existing left turn, the eastbound left turn pocket, into a two-way left turn lane. But otherwise, that would be the only change to the median.

Commissioner, I'll confirm that that's condition 33 of the engineering conditions.

Dr. Renz has basically approved it.

I don't believe that we have Caltrans approval on that yet, no.

All right. Let me, I'm looking at, and there's a gas station. I see the car wash. Where are the gas pumps? Is that parking? I see like cars. That looks like parking. Somebody tell me where the pumps are? Where?

Yeah.

It appears the line of cars, Mr. Mendoza, is the gas pumps in between the cars. That's how I understand.

So the line of cars is the gas pump. That's what I'm seeing here. So there's basically one car in each aisle, right? So usually you have two. You know, it's multiple.

We've closed the public hearing, unfortunately, so we can't take any more information from the applicant at this time. I'm sorry.

All right. I mean, to me that's a little odd configuration, but it's not my gas station, so I'm okay.

All right, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Is there any consideration of putting, like, a signal on... There was not, Commissioner. Yeah, I would have to check with staff.

I am not aware of myself, and we could get back to you on that.

Commissioners, I may add that possibly based on the review at that time of the project, there wasn't a merit for signalized intersection. However, any future projects, which staff is aware of future projects in that vicinity, Caltrans is reviewing and staff is also reviewing and potentially considering projects. future configurations that are in the intersection that may include a signalized intersection to be determined based on what those initial traffic, initial studies look like.

Any additional questions, commissioners? Just as in the prior project in D2, the purview of the commission tonight's granting the one-year extension with the revised conditions of approval. That's correct? That is correct. Thank you. All right.

If there are no other questions.

Is there a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension for site to plan and design review SPC 21-149 and tentative parcel map SDJ-21-150 for the 1901 East Yosemite Avenue project located at 1901 East Yosemite Avenue, APN 208-310-26 with amendments to attachments two, three, and four of the project's staff report to me?

Motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Paslack and a second from Commissioner Mendoza. All those in favor of vote say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? All right, motion passes 4-0. Thank you. That will take us on to the discussion items, item E1.

item e1 26-256 planning commission receive information and consider finding the proposed five-year capital improvement program not a project pursuant to sections one five zero six zero three and one five three seven eight of the california environmental quality act guidelines and adopt the resolution finding the fiscal year 2026-2027 projects of the capital improvement program in conformance with the mantica 2043 general plan pursuant to section

65401 of the california government code associate planner saul jobrak will be presenting this item good evening chair and commissioners saul jobrak associate planner with development services tonight i will be presenting the 2026 2027 capital improvement program general plan consistency determination The Capital Improvement Plan, or program, or CIP, is a five-year planning document that identifies and prioritizes infrastructure, facility, and equipment projects throughout the city. Their proposed CIP includes 256 projects totaling approximately $690 million over five years. These projects focus on maintaining infrastructure, improving facilities, and supporting future city growth. The CIP is divided into five categories, the building and facilities, capital improvement, other capital, roadways, water and sewer, and the largest share of the funding is typically allocated towards utilities and roadway infrastructure. The CIP has been reviewed for consistency with the 2043 general plan. Project support general plan key goals are related to infrastructure and public services. transportation and circulation, economic development, and sustainability. The CIP is not a project under CEQA because it is a planning and budgeting document. Each individual project will undergo environmental review at the time of its implementation. To date, staff did receive the one supplemental comment in support of this. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider and find the proposed five-year capital improvement not a project pursuant to Sections 15060C3 and 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and adopt a resolution on the fiscal year 2026-2027 projects of the Capital Improvement Program in conformance with Manteca 2043 General Plan pursuant to Sections 65401 of the California Government Code. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Joburg. All right. Any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff tonight?

Out of curiosity, what determines the program category project to put in? Because I noticed a lot of water and wastewater projects capital improvement and not water. Is there a reason for that?

I can defer to engineering on that probably, but no, what are their categories?

Can you repeat that just so I make sure I understand?

So if you look under the various categories, there's a whole bunch of water, wastewater projects under the capital improvement category, not under the water category. I was just curious why that was.

Yeah, typically capital projects are usually of a certain size in terms of dollar amount. And so I would have to look at the list again to hopefully answer that accurately. But usually if it was a smaller project, it may be into the other category. But the larger project should be under the capital improvements. And I'm not sure if that's what you're seeing. I don't have the attachment. I apologize that I could look at or refer to.

I was just wondering if the significance of viable funding

No, there shouldn't be any issue as far as that goes. There may be multiple elements sometimes of a project, too, where there may be a water portion, there may be a road portion as well, and so it gets lumped into the capital project section rather than the water section.

Yeah. Thank you, sir. Any other questions?

Mr. Middleton. Is this item, is a document prepared by a consultant or is it by a city staff?

Thank you, Commissioner. What document are we referring?

Capital Improvement.

My understanding is it starts, each department is putting this document together, submits it to fiscal, and I believe fiscal is putting together the document that we're reviewing, that we're recommending.

Thank you. Rob, can you just clarify for the record exactly what the Planning Commission is being asked to do tonight with respect to this? And what I'm getting at is our task is to find general plan conformity for this item. It's not a project. We're not being asked to make budgetary decisions and allocations of funds. Is that correct?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, that is correct. The role of the Planning Commission is land use and general plan. The government code requires us to review these documents for conformity with that general plan, and because that document is related, needs that general plan review, that is why that item is coming to you all, as though it can be looked at for conformity with the

Very good. So thank you for that. So the projects outlined within the plan are the level of authority and approval lies with City Council for those allocations. Is that correct?

Yes. And it starts a while back. That group typically is through priority meetings and working with departments and the city manager. That's where this was. Very good. Thank you.

Any other questions before public comment? All right, we'll open up public comment on this item. Madam Clerk, are there any hands raised on Zoom or any comment cards?

Chair, there are no hands raised on Zoom, and I have received no comment cards. OK.

Anyone in the audience wish to address the Commission on this item can do so now. All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Commission. Any follow-up questions, comments, discussion? No. All right, if there are no other questions, I don't have any additional questions. Thank you for answering, Mr. Groback. Is there a motion and a second to find the proposed five-year capital improvement program not a project pursuant to sections 15060C3 and 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and adopt a resolution? finding the fiscal year 2026-2027 projects of the capital improvement program in conformance with the Manteca 2043 general plan pursuant to section 65401 of the California government code.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Mendoza. All those in vote in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. That will take us to staff comments tonight.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Anticipate a reconvening on May 21. The fine commission meeting, the regular scheduled June 7th meeting will be canceled. I apologize. Let me give you the correct date. The June 4th meeting will be canceled. I want to wish everyone a happy weekend. Enjoy your weekend with Mother's Day coming up. So any mothers around your family, please enjoy your weekend. That concludes my updates for staff.

Thank you. Very good. Commissioner comments? Anyone have anything they'd like Mr. Mendoza. Nobody's leaving.

Right? Nobody's leaving.

OK, good. Good. No, because usually we got somebody leaving us. Yeah, awesome. I'd like to thank you guys. You guys, if there was me trying to deal with this computer and trying to get things going, I don't know what I'd do, but you guys did it, and thank you very much. You guys always do a great job. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll echo Commissioner Mendoza's comments and echo the comment of Happy Mother's Day. It's also my wife's birthday on Monday, so I've got a double whammy two days in a row. So I got a lot of responsibilities to figure out really quickly here. But the weather's getting beautiful out there. Summer's almost here. We got Manteca coming back to life in the summertime, lots of fun stuff coming up, so it's going to be great. So I hope to see all of you guys out there and thank the applicants tonight. Thank Mr. Fielbrock, your deputy director, for the presentations tonight, and Ms. Diaz as well. And with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 6.52 p.m.